Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Should Enoch be acccepted?


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

Poll: Should Enoch be acccepted? (44 member(s) have cast votes)

Should Enoch be acccepted?

  1. 1. Yes, Enoch, should be included/accepted by the Vatican (14 votes [31.82%])

    Percentage of vote: 31.82%

  2. 2. No, it should not (explain why) (15 votes [34.09%])

    Percentage of vote: 34.09%

  3. 3. I don't know (3 votes [6.82%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.82%

  4. 4. I don't care (12 votes [27.27%])

    Percentage of vote: 27.27%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1    Ashley-Star*Child

Ashley-Star*Child

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,014 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Somewhere on this planet ;)

Posted 22 June 2005 - 02:53 AM

Now of course this is not going to change anything but out of general curiosity, who here believes Enoch should be accepted either as part of the Cannon again (it was once part of it) or at least accepted by the Vatican (and minues the guesstimate dating)?

Reasons to vote yes:

Without Enoch, the case for Creationism is incomplete and it has historical evidence to back it up proving it IS a genuine document

2. It specifically says that God said He wanted everyone to have and share this book

3. Enoch begins the Bible, but has been left out

4. NOTHING was meant to be left out (and I believe other excluded and or partial books should be recognized and included in it's entirety).

5. The reasons it was left out were pure predjucide and not being able to comprehend what was written (like the accurate astronomy). Also, they didn't want to accept the notion of fallen agels

6. It's part of history, and should be treated as such

Reasosn to vote no:

Oh I'm sure many have reasons, state them, but if it's to do with dating, note I will NOT even read your post, because it's erroneous and irrelevant.

Reasons to vote 'I don't know'/'I don't care':

That's pretty obvious.


Posted Image


#2    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 25,980 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

  • Paranoid Android... One Mippippi, two Mippippi, three Mippipi....

Posted 22 June 2005 - 04:35 AM

I voted "I don't know", because I honestly haven't read the book - I cannot make a balanced opinion.

But I do know that it was originally in the canon, so someone found it useful.  Additionally someone stated that Jude quoted Enoch.  I cannot find the specific quote, but I'll take their word on it for now...  

Without knowing what is in Enoch, I can only speak in generalisations, but I have found the message of the Bible to be wonderfully simple and (paradoxically) frustratingly difficult to understand.  I do not think that I personally need anything more from my study of scripture than the saving blood of Jesus Christ.  But Enoch may have some points of interest to contribute to my understanding of faith.

Whatever the case, and this is most important for me, I do not need any religious organisations (particularly the Vatican) telling me it's ok to read it or not!  Come to think of it, maybe i should have voted something different then?  Oh well  original.gif

All the best,

Edit - corrected questionable data

Edited by BFG, 22 June 2005 - 05:19 AM.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#3    TaintedDoughnuts

TaintedDoughnuts

    Voted Most Original Username 2005

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,542 posts
  • Joined:28 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southern California

  • Moo.

Posted 22 June 2005 - 04:44 AM

I put "I don't know" only because: 1) I haven't read it yet tongue.gif and 2) My Bible teacher said he doesn't think they're a real part of the Bible, since they were left out and the Bible is suppose to be complete.  Then again, it could have been left out like you said.  Can you give me a link to where I can read it?  Thanks!   thumbsup.gif


#4    Skinnyal

Skinnyal

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2005

Posted 22 June 2005 - 05:00 AM

'Don't know' since i haven't read it. Doesn't mean i don't want to, rather i have a lot of other stuff to read at the moment pertaining to my studies/career.


#5    TaintedDoughnuts

TaintedDoughnuts

    Voted Most Original Username 2005

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,542 posts
  • Joined:28 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southern California

  • Moo.

Posted 22 June 2005 - 05:30 AM

QUOTE(Skinnyal @ Jun 21 2005, 10:00 PM)
'Don't know' since i haven't read it. Doesn't mean i don't want to, rather i have a lot of other stuff to read at the moment pertaining to my studies/career.

View Post


Yes, it gets very hard to read your Bible, especially when you've got college/ a hard job.  You can always find time to read it though, such as a busy kid like me, I've got homework, a buttload of chores, etc etc.  But, I can always find time for a break and read a passage or two thumbsup.gif  Even if it means ignoring your parents/coworkers for a couple minutes, they'll understand.

Happy hunting! grin2.gif


#6    Walken

Walken

    Deus ex Machina

  • Banned
  • 10,249 posts
  • Joined:07 Dec 2004
  • Location:The Mothership

  • "I've done everything you wanted me to do; so why did you do this to me?!"

Posted 22 June 2005 - 06:42 AM

I have not read the book but voted yes, because I beleive it is no less important (or accurate) than the other books. HAving not read it I could not judge clearly, but judging purely from what I've heard of it - Put it in yes.gif

Posted Image

Finish The Fight - November, 2007.


#7    Ashley-Star*Child

Ashley-Star*Child

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,014 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Somewhere on this planet ;)

Posted 22 June 2005 - 09:49 AM

Ok, for everyone who wants t read it, the best translation of it, and the only one I'd ever reccomend is 'The Old Testament Pseudeipgrapha - Vol 1'. You can read it in parts for free at Amazon.com if you put a credit card in for I.D. They don't charge you (I read many books there like that lol), but there is a limit on how much you can read.

A tip, it lets you read two pages before and two pages after when you search. Search for something on the last page you read (any sentence which stands out) and search for it. It will come up again in the search and you can read two pages ahead, etc etc..

Many books deal with Enoch, from the Testament of Solomon (full version) which deals with the Nephilim, 'Book of Giants/Watchers' in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1 Enoch is also in the DSC), Jubilees, Testament of Moses. etc

In Cannon books, there is reference to the angel Azazel with the Azazel goat in the wilderness (Azazel was bound in the wilderness, and a scapegoat with two other angels for the rest of the 200)in Exodus, Genesis (Nephilim, sons of God daughters of Men, etc), Jude, Hebrews, and I think thre was one other book that made a brief reference to it.

As for a someone saying it's not thre because it's not real, in both Cannon and non-Cannon books (and I've heard Jesuss even mentioned something about it somewhere) Enoch seems to have been a great influence, and WAS part of the Bible until the 4th century when Augustine threw it out along with astrology, and in it's place made up the notion of 'Original Sin' all of his own mind. Certain Hebrew people, while keping it as a sacred text, did not accept the notion of fallen angels, and the Rabbi who made the Zohar put a curse on any of his followers who even uttered a word about these angels that married women. He also did this of his own mind. od specifically said in these texts He wanted everyone to have it, and to share it with every generation. Part of that reason was that God directly spoke to Enoch about Creation (an angel told Moses, in the second account/retelling of Creation in Genesis which came from Jubilees. Jubilees quotes Enoch, the fall of the angels, what they taught, etc, thereby Enoch is the real first book of the Bible, and Enoch was the first to write), man's free will, etc.

Edited by Ashley-Star*Child, 22 June 2005 - 09:55 AM.


Posted Image


#8    TooFarGone

TooFarGone

    Blissfully Chaotic

  • Member
  • 3,682 posts
  • Joined:21 Sep 2004

  • I am chaos at its finest


Posted 22 June 2005 - 09:53 AM

So, Enoch is more about the Creation?

Too / FarGone
TooFar_Gone
TooFa/ rGone
TooFarG_one
T_oo/FarGone
Too/Far_Gone
Too_Far_Gone

#9    Essan

Essan

    Recruitment Agent for the 'B' Ark

  • Member
  • 2,332 posts
  • Joined:18 Mar 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The other side

  • Stop Climate Change: Plant a Rain Forest Today!

Posted 22 June 2005 - 10:28 AM

Well, as an atheist, I don't care   grin2.gif

You can find out more about the Book of Enoch, and read a translation of it, here original.gif


Andy

Weather & Earth Science News
The independent climate blog

#10    Falco Rex

Falco Rex

    The Winged Avenger

  • Member
  • 4,702 posts
  • Joined:04 May 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana

  • I'll write something pithy here later, for now just use it to advertise your band.

Posted 22 June 2005 - 10:55 AM

As someone who isn't a practicing Christian I guess my input won't matter all that much here, but I voted yes, anyway..
Simply because if it was in there once, it belongs there now, for the sake of completeness. If you're going to base your life around what the Bible teaches then you should have the opportunity to read the entire uncut version, at least..


#11    Consummate Deist

Consummate Deist

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Closed
  • PipPipPip
  • 416 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2003
  • Location:Texas

Posted 22 June 2005 - 11:02 AM

Ashley, you have been shown over and over again that (1) Enoch is a forgery and (2) Although popular reading in the 1st century BCE was never accepted in the canon of either the Jews or the Christians.  They both recognized it for what it was, the ancient equivalent of a science fantasy novel!  You and about 4 more people in the world believe that Enoch is real! - CD  thumbsup.gif

Blashemy is an epithet bestowed by superstition on common sense.

#12    Ashley-Star*Child

Ashley-Star*Child

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,014 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Somewhere on this planet ;)

Posted 22 June 2005 - 11:19 PM

It is not a forgery, and I've shown you over and over again. The original texts which make up the Bible quote Enoch from the very first book of our Bible, Genesis, which came from a text called Jubilees. CD I'm going to put it this way, if you say that Enoch is a forgery, and the very first book of our Bible quotes it, you're saying the entire BIBLE was a later forgery, and I know damn well that's what you're trying t insinuate. You can't, however, because the historical evidence backs it up. Thoth the scribe of Egypt, WAS Enoch the scribe to the Egyptians, the teachings of the angels are shown in Pre-Dynasty Egypt, etc etc etc.

The dating was a GUESSTIMATE, and, no doubt something to cover their asses for why their had the book thrown out. It is not a forgery, and may I add, Ethiopian Koptics (and don't tell their Gnostics, even if they are, it's irrelevant) still have Enoch in their Cannon. Enoch was Ethiopian remember.


Posted Image


#13    Ashley-Star*Child

Ashley-Star*Child

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,014 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Somewhere on this planet ;)

Posted 22 June 2005 - 11:49 PM

And on top of that, the Hebrews kept it as a sacred text (hence why it was in the Dead Sea Scrolls) and actually used the angelology taken from Enoch, but somewhere along the line they did not accpet the notion of fallen angels, and this is where the Rabbi put a curse on anyone of his followers who even uttered that an angel married a woman. In short, they were afraid of it, and I will also add, that at the time there WAS a rather sexist attitude amoung some Hebrew/Jewish people. They also blamed the wome for the account, even though IN Enoch it says the women were NOT at fault. In the Haggadah it even suggests that the ONLY woman God had ever spoken to was Sarah, and that God only speaks to women through a interpreter. That was ORAL tradition, and was not backed up by direct words from God or even a prophet.

As a result of Enoch and just about all the texts which refer to him being removed many parts of the Bible are a 'mystery' and people don't understand it. Originally, people DID understand what was written because it hd already been explained in the very first book - Enoch. In fact it became forbidden at one point to even NAME angels in the Bible, another reason and/or because of Enoch.

His calendars were accurate, meteorology, astronomy, order of planets which hadn't even been discovered at that time etc. Even at the date it is being guesstimated at hadn't discovered these planets yet. This book said the Earth and planets were spheres when people thought the Earth was flat!

As for a Rabbi's curse, whose more powerful, a curse, or God? I say God is.

People are afraid of what they don't understand.

Edited by Ashley-Star*Child, 23 June 2005 - 12:46 AM.


Posted Image


#14    Consummate Deist

Consummate Deist

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Closed
  • PipPipPip
  • 416 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2003
  • Location:Texas

Posted 23 June 2005 - 12:47 PM

QUOTE
The original texts which make up the Bible quote Enoch from the very first book of our Bible, Genesis

I love the way to shoot yourself in the foot....there are no original texts of the bible, the oldest copies are only 2200 years old!  You have no way of knowing what the originals said! - CD  thumbsup.gif

Blashemy is an epithet bestowed by superstition on common sense.

#15    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,484 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 23 June 2005 - 05:48 PM

Until such time as the Book of Enoch is shown to have the same credibility that the accepted books of the bible have, it should not be considered for inclusion.  The bible already suffers from a great deal of negative publicity, and addition of a text that is regarded by the majority of experts on the matter to be a hoax will not help matters any.  It would have to be shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that the book originates from where it is claimed to.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users